[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaskewal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2025
CRM-M-60313-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60313-2025 (O&M)
JASKEWAL SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ...Respondents
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 02.12.2025
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 19.12.2025
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on 19.12.2025
the website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or whether the full judgment
is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable
full judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Salil Dev Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jaiveer Singh Bali, Advocate,
Mr. Archana Chauran, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. :-
1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by
the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case bearing FIR
No.21 dated 04.02.2025 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468 and
471 of IPC (Section 467 and 120-B of IPC added later on) at Police Station
1 of 4
CRM-M-60313-2025 (O&M) -2-
Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot. The previous petition bearing CRM-M-
14658-2025 had been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated
16.05.2025.
2. As per the allegations, an FIR No.45 dated 04.07.2019 had
been registered against one Rajbir Singh Brar at Police Station Sadiq,
District Faridkot on the basis of statement recorded by complainant-
Nachhatar Singh making allegations that he had demanded a sum of Rs.21
lakhs from him for clearing limit of bank account operative in the name of
a firm. The above-said Rajbir Singh then lodged a complaint against the
petitioner who was posted as a Head Teacher in a Government school at
Village Ghuggiana on the allegations of tampering of record and
embezzlement of funds. On one of such complaints, the aforementioned
FIR has been registered. Investigation proceedings have been initiated and
are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner previously filed an
application for pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 07.03.2025. The
petitioner thereafter filed a petition before this Court which was dismissed
on 16.05.2025 and further dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 16.06.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the co-
accused Nacchatar Singh has been extended benefit of bail by this Court.
His case is on the similar footing and as such he too deserves to be
extended the same benefit. Even otherwise, the ingredients for
commission of subject offences are not at all attracted against him. He is
ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No
recovery is to be effected from him. Extension of benefit of bail to the co-
2 of 4
CRM-M-60313-2025 (O&M) -3-
acused Nacchatar is a sufficient ground to extend the benefit of bail to him
as well. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has
argued that this petition being a successive petition for grant of
anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Even otherwise, no ground is made
out for allowing the petition. The co-accused Nacchatar Singh was
complainant in FIR No.47. His case is not at parity with the case of the
co-accused. For proper and thorough investigation in the matter, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required, which he has been avoiding
since long. It is, thus, urged that the petition does not deserve to be
allowed.
5. Respondent No. 2/complainant has filed written submissions.
It is submitted therein and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued
that on the complaint dated 05.04.2024, submitted by him, regarding
embezzlement of government school grants, forgery and tampering of
official records by education officials, including petitioner Jaskewal
Singh, was deliberately ignored, forcing him to file a contempt petition,
after which the aforementioned FIR No. 21 dated 04.02.2025 was
registered in a diluted form omitting core allegations to favour the accused.
There are serious allegations against the petitioner qua forging SMC
resolution, fabrication and alteration of official reports. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has been denied concession of bail by the
Sessions Court, this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case,
he is granted concession of pre-arrest bail, the same will pose a serious
risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation at his instance. Hence,
the dismissal of the petition is prayed for.
3 of 4
CRM-M-60313-2025 (O&M) -4-
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner has already availed his remedy before the
Court of Sessions, this Court and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
concession of anticipatory bail has been declined to him at all three levels.
The allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific attributing to
him acts of embezzlement of government school funds, forgery of SMC
resolutions and tampering with official records in connivance with other
accused, while he was posted as Head Teacher. The petitioner has failed
to point out any new circumstance or material change in the factual or legal
position subsequent to the earlier rejection of his bail pleas, which could
justify reconsideration of his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The plea
of parity with co-accused Nachhatar Singh is also misconceived as the role
attributed to the petitioner is distinct and more serious and the said co-
accused stands on a different footing. At this stage of investigation,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be ruled out, particularly in
view of the nature of allegations and the requirement of a fair and effective
investigation. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
8. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are
only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not
be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
19.12.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari/Amit Sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
